plan_node_upgrade

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, produces ordered steps and policy preflight, and changes nothing. It also mentions using artifacts from the dedicated builder. Missing are potential preconditions or error states, but the description is fairly transparent for a plan tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two sentences that are entirely relevant. The first sentence states the purpose and the second emphasizes the read-only nature. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) which likely describes return values, so the description does not need to elaborate. It covers the key aspects: what the tool does, what it produces, and that it is non-destructive. It does not mention preconditions or error scenarios, but these may be covered elsewhere.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'target_version' in context, but does not explain the 'name' parameter clearly (node name? cluster name?). The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'plan', the resource 'node upgrade', and the scope 'dry-run' and 'read-only'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'upgrade' by specifying it is a planning step that produces ordered steps and policy preflight, and does not change anything.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description indicates when to use: to preview upgrade steps before executing. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'changes nothing', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the sibling list implies the distinction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.